This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/18/us/justices-bar-us-suit-in-nigerian-human-rights-case.html
The article has changed 5 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 0 | Version 1 |
|---|---|
| Justices Bar U.S. Suit in Nigerian Human Rights Case | Justices Bar U.S. Suit in Nigerian Human Rights Case |
| (35 minutes later) | |
| WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday that Nigerian plaintiffs who said foreign oil companies had been complicit in violating their human rights may not sue in American courts. The decision severely limited the sweep of a 1789 law that had been used to address human rights abuses abroad. | |
| The decision was unanimous, but the court members divided along ideological lines on their reasoning. | The decision was unanimous, but the court members divided along ideological lines on their reasoning. |
| Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., writing for the majority, said a general presumption against the extraterritorial application of American law barred the suit. He added that some contact with the United States would not be sufficient to overcome the presumption. | Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., writing for the majority, said a general presumption against the extraterritorial application of American law barred the suit. He added that some contact with the United States would not be sufficient to overcome the presumption. |
| “Corporations are often present in many countries,” he wrote, “and it would reach too far to say mere corporate presence suffices.” | “Corporations are often present in many countries,” he wrote, “and it would reach too far to say mere corporate presence suffices.” |
| Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. joined the majority opinion. | Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. joined the majority opinion. |
| The 1789 law, the Alien Tort Statute, allows federal courts to hear “any civil action by an alien for a tort only, committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States.” | The 1789 law, the Alien Tort Statute, allows federal courts to hear “any civil action by an alien for a tort only, committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States.” |
| The law was largely ignored until the 1980s, when federal courts started to apply it in international human rights cases. A 2004 Supreme Court decision, Sosa v. Álvarez-Machain, left the door open to some claims under the law, as long as they involved violations of international norms with “definite content and acceptance among civilized nations.” | The law was largely ignored until the 1980s, when federal courts started to apply it in international human rights cases. A 2004 Supreme Court decision, Sosa v. Álvarez-Machain, left the door open to some claims under the law, as long as they involved violations of international norms with “definite content and acceptance among civilized nations.” |
| In a concurrence, Justice Stephen G. Breyer, joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, said he “would not invoke the presumption against extraterritoriality.” | |
| He said suits under the law should be allowed when “the defendant’s conduct substantially and adversely affects an important American national interest, and that includes a distinct interest in preventing the United States from becoming a safe harbor (free of civil as well as criminal liability) for a torturer or other common enemy of mankind.” | He said suits under the law should be allowed when “the defendant’s conduct substantially and adversely affects an important American national interest, and that includes a distinct interest in preventing the United States from becoming a safe harbor (free of civil as well as criminal liability) for a torturer or other common enemy of mankind.” |
| Justice Breyer said that standard had not been satisfied in the case decided Wednesday, Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., No. 10-1491. | Justice Breyer said that standard had not been satisfied in the case decided Wednesday, Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., No. 10-1491. |